“Nosological” Man: “We” (Kitawo/Akitalibutan) and Heidegger’s Concept of
“Care,” “Solicitude” and “Death”
By Noni Carabuena
Introduction
In the first part of this paper, it will tackle about the
foundation of “Nosological” man as “Nothing.” This will open a
perspective about the ultimate “foundation” of man as “We” that
will go further from the stance of Western thought. The second
portion of this paper will explicate the existence of “tawo” as
man on the concept of “care” and “solicitude.” This will situate
the reality of “things” and existence of “Being-with-others.”
This part will explain why Dasein couldn’t attain its
“authenticity,” and why is there “We” in man? The third chapter
as the central point of this paper will discuss about
“instancing” of “Nosological” man and the possibility of Dasein
towards its “authenticity” through the idea of nothing as its
ground towards “Nothing.” In this part, it will explore the
possibility regarding the totality of Being by becoming first as
non-Being that will clearly indicate the idea of the beyond of
the “beyond,” nothing towards “Nothing.” On the fourth section of1
this work, it will argue about the conception of consciousness as
world, its sameness and relativity. In this chapter, it will
emphasize the thought of “I am We are World-consciousness” as
“Akitalibutan,” leading towards deeper understanding of “kitawo”
in the world. And on the last chapter, it will indicate the
climax of man as “We” are “One” as “Nothing-Everything.” It will
underline the significance of “We” in relation to the “I” that
will stress out the importance of one another. It will also
entertain the notion of inseparable “I-We-World” in regards with
the “We” as a central point. And it will go back to the reality
of concrete world in order to apply the concept of “We” towards
the idea of singularity and plurality. And this paper will
conclude with an affirmation of regarding man’s foundational
journey as “Nothing” to nothing to something and “instancing”
“Nothing.”
Chapter I
1. “Nosological” Man and “Ontological” Man
A. “Nosological” Man founded on “Nothing”
2
One of the basic concepts regarding man in Western
Philosophy is centred on the “nihilistic” point of view which
originates its essence and existence.1 The “nothingness” meant
here is about the “emptiness” that represents the idea of a
“vacuum.” The “nothingness” of nothing explicates the “absence”
of every being out of their being “there.” However, on the other
side of the idea of “nothing,” there is a notion of the “beyond”
that captures the ultimate peak of man, that is “Nothing.” This
“Nothing” is “far” from the realm of anything else including the
grasp of understanding because to understand is only possible
with existence. It represents the concept of “static freezing”
point or the getting out of existence per se. 2 If we will try to
examine the whole idea of “Nothing,” we will end up to the
“ungraspable” and “staticity” of its “non-existence.”
“Ungraspable” in a sense that even the capacity of the mind to
understand cannot capture “It.”
1 Das Nicht nichtet (The Nothing nothings). A Western (particularly German) philosophical concept that says that “nothing cannot be but nothing.”
2 Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr., “We”: “Nosology” of Communion (Jaro, IloiloCity, Philippines: St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary Publications, 2009), 64. Hereafter, WE.
3
“The ‘journey’ of ‘Nosological’ man ‘starts’ in
‘Nothing,’ ‘producing’ the condition of possibility of something
– the nothing – out of nothing the something….”3 The very
foundation of man starts with “Nothing” which fundamentally
indicates its being “Nosological” towards the nothing to
something (worldly existence) and going back “again”4 to
“Nothing.” It elucidates the ground of the “awareness” of its
“Fullness” through its “Nothingness” that will lead the man to
its ‘‘Nothing-All” or an “All-Nothing” man.5 This will “open” a
new “paradigm” of an “unknown (?)” idea of man’s origin that will
give a contemporary concept of man’s ultimate “Possibility,” the
“Nothingness” of man.
B. Man founded on nothing to something (ontological)
Ontology has for its object being as existingand its categories. It is the study ofentities and reality. It focuses onfoundations of reality and, thus, it isfoundational philosophy. It asks questionsabout being, substance, existence, essence,identity, physical objects, properties,accidents and universals. It classifies
3 Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr., “Nosological’’ Man (Part2) (Unpublished work,2015), 5. Hereafter, Nosological Man 2.
4 ”again” here indicates the “journey” or the “instancing” of man from itsessence and existence going to “Nothing”
5 Nosological Man 2, 5.
4
objects into concrete, abstract, existent,nonexistent, real, ideal, independent anddependent. Thus, it has different types suchas formal (and material/regional),descriptive and formalized ontologies.6
In Western philosophy, the basic foundation of man is based
on the egoistic, solipsistic and ontological point of view or its
“I-ness” that originates from nothing. The starting point of
everything in man is in the “I” which will bring us to the idea
of “nothing” as the basis. Nothing as a “vacuum” becomes the
starting ground of existence of being, for the “emptiness” of
nothing there is something. The something here becomes the
reality of existence where it is bounded in space and time. It
was all made possible by the “consciousness” who perceives it
because it will become the determiner of something that exists.
“Existential understanding is a worked-out understanding of
the ontological structures of existence, that is, of what it is
to be Dasein.”7 The implication of this kind of idea focuses on
the existential point of view which “limits” the possibility of
man as a being “We”. The problem of existence as something
6 Raul Corazzon, Theory and History of Ontology, (in www.ontology.com).7 Hubert L. Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time
(Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 1991), 20.
5
“inauthentic” becomes a hindrance to accept the reality of “care”
and “solicitude” towards the “We.” Thus, being ontological man,
must go “beyond” itself in order to “allow” and “let be” itself
to reveal an eye opener towards the “concept” of “We.”
C. “We” as man and “I” as man
Before anything else, the meaning of “We” is not a
pronoun that we commonly understand but it is more of the verb in
the imperative mood – a command to remember and become the
original ground of everything, to be “We.” 8 “It” is not also an
essence or existence but a “non-existence” and “non-essence.”9
Thinking outside the reality of Western thought, the
notion of “We” represents the “very” origin and hindmost
foundation of man. The “We-ness” of man stands as the primordial
ground of its existence in the “world.” Without the “We,” the “I-
ness” of man will be left unresolved and unclear. The implication
of “We” in this perception is the leeway to understand fully the
entire purpose of “we” which is “to be We!” in the real sense.
8 WE, 80. 9 WE, 76.
6
However, on the side of Western thought where the “I”
becomes the basic framework of all existence, this idea will
repudiate the conception of the “We.” Why? Because the western
mind believes that the “I” is the ground of all existence
(ontological), and the issue here is all about existence which
will somehow create an “egologic” mentality in a way that it
focuses only on the being-in-itself (distinction of I from
another I) and not on the other “We”.10 Because of the
“undetermined” future of death, the only way to “terminate” this
particular idea is to associate the “I” with existence, which if
we will analyse it deeply, the path is toward “solipsistic”
reality, in a manner that the question of its being will remain a
“mystery.” If the “I” is purely the “I” without the acceptance of
the “we,” the “I” will remain “blurred” and “uncertain” because
of the absence of point of reference. How can the “I” make sure
of its “I-ness” without another “I”? How can the “I” becomes an
“I” without other “Is” or in short the “we”? Thus, the
inseparable reality of I-we relationship must be highly accepted
10 WE, 72.
7
in order to develop a kind of commonality of “worlds” towards the
“world” to the “We.”
Chapter II
2. “Tawo” as man on “Care” and “Solicitude”
A. The “hereness” and “thereness” of “tawo” as point of
reference of “kitawo”
When “I” encounters another “I,” it manifests space where
the “here” and “there” are becoming possible, and it shows a
motion that tells about the movement of a before and an after.11 The
emphasis of a before and an after indicates the flow of time wherein
it shows the presence of time - which speaks about the
temporality of the world. This will explicate the entrance of
“thereness” and “hereness” of “tawo” in the world (“timed-world”)
for it shows presence of “spacial” reality. But in order to know
the “there-ness” and “here-ness” of “tawo,” it must have another
“tawo” that will really signify the space of the two movements as
11 WE, 39.
8
point of reference between them. The being “here” of the “tawo”
will remain questionable without the presence of another pole of
existence. For example, I will declare my being-here but the
problem is, how can I declare my “here-ness” if there is no
“there-ness” of the other “tawo?” Thus, the “I’’ will only become
possible through the presence of another “I” that will lead
itself to think of the “I” as another “tawo” that will eventually
create a sphere of “ako and ikaw” are “tawo” and both of us are
“kita-tawo” in the same sphere of existence. It will highlight
not only the “I” that exists but the “kita-tawo-in-the-world”
where it will possibly lead the “tawo” to think about the concept
of the “kita-tawo” as its basic framework of its existence-in-
the-world.
The notion of “kita-tawo” will only become possible if there
is an “acceptance”12 and “communion” between the two existing
entity (my being “tawo” is the same as his that will develop a
“kita-tawo” consciousness). It requires other idea of another
“tawo” so that it will not be prone to error and “solipsism.”13
12 “acceptance” means an understanding that there is really “others” besides “I’s” existence that will lead to the idea of “we” and towards “We”.
13 “Solipsism” is the metaphysical view that my mind alone exists, it isthe only reality; and that all things other than my mind exist only as the
9
The “kita-tawo” will be commonly understood under the realm of
many “Is” which thoroughly indicates the common ground of
experience leading towards a deeper understanding of “kita-tawo”
in general.
B. The “existence-essence’’ of “tawo” on “Care”
“…Dasein always comes ‘too late’; for in so far as it does
this presupposing as an entity (otherwise this would be
impossible), it is, as an entity, already in the world.”14 This line
of text emphasises the already-being-there of Dasein in the
world, which ultimately to question its Being. If the Dasein will
make “earlier” presupposition, it is the “priori” character of
its state of Being as one whose kind of Being is care.15
In the realm of temporality (being in the world) of Dasein
(because of its entity in “time”), it will encounter a phenomenon
of “things” which will give itself an “anxiety” in regards to the
attainment of its (Dasein’s) “authenticity”. The existence of
“things” as an object of its existence will result its
thought of my mind. – T.Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre the Philosophy Quest (NewYork: Bantam Books, 1984), 418.
14 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1962) 249. Hereafter, BT.
15 BT, 249.
10
“falleness,” which eventually become the problem of its “Being-
authentic.” “Concern is a character-of-being which Being-with
cannot have as its own, even though Being-with, like concern, is
a Being towards entities encountered within-the-world.”16 In this
particular situation, the difficulty of Dasein to become
“authentic” hinders itself to grasp the totality of its Being and
lead itself to search its wholeness. This quest of totality
brings the Dasein to be more engage to the entire phenomenon of
care. But the structure of care does not speak against the
possibility of Being-a-whole but is the condition for the possibility of
such an existentiell potentiality-for-Being.17 Moreover, the
Being-in-the-world can cause falleness and disclosedness which repeatedly
to go back again to the issue of its potentiality-for-Being as a whole,
both in its Being alongside the ‘world’ and its Being-with-
Others.18
The Dasein as “tawo-in-the-world” will now be experiencing a
negation of its Being-with in a complete sense. The everydayness
of “tawo-in-the-world-with-care” will continually give anxiety
16 BT, 157. 17 BT, 365.18 BT, 225.
11
“in-itself” where it shows being-present-at-hand of care. The
“undeniable” presence of the being-there of care is already in
the reality of the world. In this context of the existing reality
of care, this will give the “tawo-in-the-world” a perception to
accept the “given-ness” of care-in-the-world. The existence of
tree in there is a “given” reality already that needs to accept
because of its being a present-at-hand phenomenon.
Thus, the “tawo” has no choice but to accept the being-there
of “care-in-the-world” which can eventually give itself an idea
to accept also the existence of many “tawo-in-the-world.” The
being-“tawo” of the “tawo” will essentially more foundational
through many “tawo” because it will help itself to deeply clarify
the question of its being “tawo.” For example, the existence of
the “tawo” will be fundamentally “acceptable-in-itself” if there
is another tawo who will “affirm” its existence. The “tawo”
becomes a “tawo” because of the existence of many “tawo” which
can lead itself in a state of “we” as “kita-tawo” towards deeper
exploration of “kita-tawo-in-the-world.”
12
C. The “We” (Kitawo) in “tawo” on “Solicitude”
“[A]nxiousness as a state-of-mind is a way of Being-in-the-
world; that in the face of which we have anxiety is thrown Being-
in-the-world; that which we have anxiety about is our
potentiality-for-Being-in-the-world.”19 Being-with-others is a
concrete reality where Dasein experiences “anxiety.” This
“anxiety” signifies Dasein as factically existing in the world.20
It will hinder itself towards its “authenticity” because of the
“dwellings” or “encounters” they made along the way. It is a
“given” reality where the presence of others is already there
leading to be in the state of Being-with.
Going to the concept of “Kitawo” in “tawo,” the existence of
many “tawo” will further explain the “we” in “tawo” by the
presence of “anxiety” that binds them with one another. As the
“tawo” experiences the “anxiety” from another “tawo” or group of
“tawo,” it will concretely show the meaning of the actual
existence of “kita-tawo-in-the-world” leading towards the idea of
“Kitawo-in-tawo-in-the-world.” The “Kitawo-in-tawo-in-the-world” will serve as
19BT, 235.20 BT, 235.
13
a “jumping-board” to fully grasp the meaning of “Akitalibutan,”
for it will deeply define the “kita-tawo” as the determiner of
the world. Without the presence of “kita-tawo,” the world of
“tawo” will become solipsistic. The “kita-tawo” is the
constituter of the “tawo” because the “certainty” of being “tawo”
of the “tawo” can be found only in the “kita-tawo.”21
D. “We-Time” “in” man and man-and-others
The “We” in man indicates its being “Nosologic” because of
the “mystery” of its beginning as “We-Time-Nothingness” (it is the
“beyond” nothingness of meontology- “non-graspable” state of
“tawo”) and death as “instancing” to “Nothing-Everything.” This
“We-Time” “in” man has infinite possibilities for it “is not”
“what is” (essence) and “is” (existence), but it is a condition
for the possibility of “what is” and “is.”22 In the state of man-
in-the-world (something), this notion of “We-Time” “in” man is a
kind of an “innate” structure where it can be considered as its
“Nosologic” identity. It is a “given” Characteristic “in” man
where along the process of its existence in the world, it will
21 WE, 71.22 WE, 65.
14
become conscious of this “Possibility” “in” itself. In the “We-
Time” condition, the “I” will no longer distinguishable from
other “Is” because“It” is already “We.”
Man-and-others is situated in the existential reality where
man is distinguishable or identifiable from other man. It is a
state where man can consciously think of his “what is” (essence)
and “is” (existence). “The ontologically relevant result of our
analysis of Being-with is the insight that the ‘subject
character’ of one’s own Dasein and that of Others is to be
defined existentially…”23 The ground of all beings-in-the-world
can be determined in an existential phenomenon, encountering what
they are and what they do. As the man identify its body from
another body, it will become aware of their distinction and
differences from one another. The man will create a dealing-with-
each-other in the world and with entities within the world which
eventually dispersed themselves into manifold ways of concern.24
Thus, the disclosure and explication of man regarding others will
become his preliminary and accompanying theme as it will go along to
“know” more about itself. Man-and-others is a notion to man as it23 BT, 163.24 BT, 95.
15
will continuously explore the “other” side of its Being-towards-
death.
Chapter III
3. “Instancing” of “Nosological” Man and “Becoming” of “Ontological” Man
A. “Becoming” towards “Authenticity”(Death) and
“Instancing” towards “Nothing”
As the man undergo the process of existence towards its end,
the situation of its ensuing “condition” after death is left
“hanging” and “questionable.” Such questions like, what is “in”
“there” after death? Am I still conscious of my Being after I
die? Can I still encounter different entities “in” “there?”
Different kinds of questions are still under the realm of
“possibility” and still “unanswerable”. No one knows what is “in”
“there?” The play of various possibilities constantly open the
consciousness of man towards its ultimate end.
a. The “outstanding” and “not-yet” of Dasein
16
“…in Dasein there is always something still outstanding, which, as a
potentiality-for-Being for Dasein itself, has not yet become
‘actual.’”25 As long as the Dasein exists, it will continuously
experience the reality of its “not-yet.” This particular
perspective shows the “something unsettled” regarding the
“wholeness” of Dasein. The “not-yet” explicates the potentiality-of-
Being of Dasein towards its end – which is constantly an
outstanding.26 It is in the situation wherein the “lacking” “in”
itself must be filled up. It signifies the missing of its totality as
a whole in relation to its existence in the world. “But as soon
as Dasein ‘exists’ in such a way that absolutely nothing more is
still outstanding in it, then it has already for this very reason
become “no-longer-Being-there” [Nicht-mehr-da-sein].”27 This will
indicate the incapacity of Dasein to reach its “wholeness” while it
is still an entity. It will lose its Being-in-the-world, to “no-
longer-Being-there,” if it will gain its “wholeness” in an
absolute sense.
25 BT, 279. – “something still outstanding” came from the verb “ausstehen”and the noun “Ausstand” (these words are ordinarily used in German to apply toa debt or a bank deposit which, from the point of view of the lender or depositor, has not yet repaid to him, liquidated, or withdrawn)
26 BT, 286.27 BT, 280.
17
b. “No-longer-Being-there” of Dasein
In this concept, the “no-longer-Being-there” means the no-
longer-Dasein of the Dasein which will draw to its Being-no-
longer-in-the-world. The change-over of an entity from Dasein’s
existence-in-the-world going to no-longer-Dasein will create a
dilemma towards its “entity.” Neither it will only be the same
Being nor just a Being-just-present-at-hand-and-no-more (it is
“more” lifeless” material Thing).
Heidegger’s enquiry regarding Dasein’s “no-longer-Being-
there” presupposes the idea of Being-just-present-at-hand-and-no-
more of a corporeal Thing which we encounter.28 It is a kind of
“non-existential” part of Dasein’s “Being-ness” where its Being-
in-the-world becomes a Being-alongside. But still it is a Being in
the highest sense. This ultimate perception of Dasein in the
state of death widens the very scope of its Being which offers a
concept of dying as a possibility-of-Being towards its death that
belongs to his Being.29
c. The confrontation of nothing from “death” towards “Being-authentic”
28 BT, 281.29 BT, 283.
18
“Absolutizing our horizon of disclosure andso misconstruing our world of beings asconstituting the totality of what there is,locked into two-dimensionality of taking the‘globe of Being’ to be a flat, illuminateddisk, were we take its other ‘side’ to be anabsolute – an ‘empty’, a completely‘privative-negative’-‘nothing.’” 30
The emphasis of this idea will directly create a series of
possibilities in regards to the searching of “authenticity” of
Dasein. By thinking of its potentiality-of-Being in Being-in-the-
world, it will open a new perspective of the “beyond” – outside
the domain of existential reality, the nothing. This idea will
become an entrance to deeply explore the other side of non-
existence and non-relation, the idea of nothingness.
d. Something and nothing
The idea of an “authentic” man grounded on the notion of
Being-alone-in-death will theoretically develop a thought of
“beyond” existence – the non-existence leading towards the idea of
nothing. The non-existence will not anymore cover the reality or
“existence” and “essence” that will lead to a deeper
understanding of beyond-death. It will directly go back to the
30Julian Young, Heidegger’s Later Philosophy, (Cambridge University Press, 2002)68. Hereafter, HLP.
19
idea of something to nothing. If there is something, there is
nothing also. That will simply tell about the no-longer-Dasein as
nothing because when it is in the state of Being-in-the-world, it
represents its Being-something. The more “somethingness” asserts
its “somethingness” it confirms its nothingness.31 Thus, if we
will try to reflect this specific idea, we will be exploring the
other-side-Being of Dasein itself, the ‘realm’ of nothingness.
e. Nothingness as “alone” in “Authenticity”
The “revelation” of nothing out of something creates a leeway
to explore deeply the journey of Dasein in relation to its “whole”
structure. In order to fully grasp the “wholeness” of Dasein’s
Being, it must be open to the possibility of nothing. Dasein’s
incapacity to experience death will ideally construct a perception
of nothingness. How? In the case wherein Dasein is no-longer-
Dasein and Being-no-longer-in-the-world, the ontological
structure of its Being will turn into meontological (nothing)
concept because of the absence of actual experience. Although the
paradox of its “authenticity” creates a perception about the
31 Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., Nothingness of Something (Unpublished work, 2010), 12.
20
totality of its being through death, but if it will go further from
the realm of its Being, it can possibly discover a new hypothesis of
its entire Being through nothing. The shift of its being something
to its being nothing will ultimately open a new interpretation of
its “fullness.” Dasein’s going-out-of-the-world in the sense of
dying will presuppose non-existence because of its absence in his
body. Therefore, if there is no existence-in-the-world, there is
nothing, for existence happens only in the realm of something.
Now, the body as dead will represent its materiality, while the
going-out-of-the-world will characterize its Being-nothing
towards its “authenticity.”
f. Nothing (“flow”) to “instancing” to “Nothing” (“Freeze”/ “Unflow”)
Being in the state of nothing, the notion of non-existence,
non-Being and non-relation will ultimately become a ‘truth’
because existence and relation happens only in the demesne of
space and time. This nothing will open the field of meontology.32
It is the study or science of non-being or un-being; of what lies
32 See, Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., “Nosology” as “Me-Meontology” (Unpublishedwork, 2013), 3-4.
21
beyond Being; a kind of non-ontological metaphysics.33 The
possibility of something (the world of Being) is made possible by
nothing. “…nothing is the ground of something because it is
nothing that conditions something – out of nothing, something.”34
The emptiness or absence of something indicates the idea of
nothing, for nothing will become impossible if there is
something. Thus, the non-something will ultimately procure the
idea of nothing (“flow”). But in nothing, there is still a “flow”
of “another” time (an abstract time) and “empty” space (makes the
past, present and future possible) which emphasizes the
“presentation” of its nothingness. It is a “phenomenon” that
emphasizes the totality of “absence” and “emptiness.”
However, if we will try to analyse it deeply, the nothing
has a “movement” which made possible by “another” time and
“empty” space, and if we will go beyond to the idea of its
“movement,” we will discover the concept of the “Unmoved.” The
“Unmoved” shows the “Static” “Reality” where no one can grasp
including the reality of our understanding. Our incapacity to be33 Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., “Nosology” as “Me-Meontology” (Unpublished
work, 2013), 3.34 Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., “Nothing” “Somethings”: “Nihilensic Nosology”
(Unpublished work, 2011), 12. Hereafter, Nihilensic Nosology.
22
“There” hinders us to capture the wholeness of Its “Essence.”
This will give us the point of the “Ungrasp,” “Static” and
“Unmoved” “Nothing.” Even our cognitive thinking cannot entirely
“grasp” its “Nothingness,” because thinking is just an object of
thought originated in our existence. Thus, to say “Nothing” means
to say ____________. The “idea” of “Nothing” will give us the
line of understanding regarding man’s foundation as “Nosological”
“We-man” and “Nothing-man.” It is a “beyond” of the beyond of the
reality of existence. By “thinking” “Nothing” is the same as
“thingking” “We” in the “perfect” sense.
In the “instancing” towards “Nothing,” there are no other
possibilities to consider because it is already “beyond”
nothingness, the “Unmoved.” It indicates the “whole” structure of
man which is “innate” or a “given” in him. It is an “acceptable”
in man because there is no thinking required in order to fully
understand his being “Nothing.”
When we think of “Nothing,” thinking “freezes”and it is not thinking anymore. It can only be“instancing.” When thinking “freezes” and cannot“flow” then thinking does not work anymore buthas to give way to “instancing” (a “standing in”)of “Nothing.” “Nothing” cannot be an object of
23
thought because it is not thinking that is“proper” act for “Nothing.” It is “instancing.”35
Therefore, when man dies it will directly presuppose its
“instancing” towards “Nothing.” This will conceptualize the idea
of “Nothing-man” that will apodictically explicate his being a
“Nosological” man. The perfect structure of man is “We-Time-
Nothingness” that will guarantee its fullness from the “Beginning-
Nothing” until back “again” to “Nothing.”
B. “Nothing” “in” man
The ‘knowing’ of man who he is will definitely cover the
“reality” of “beyond” existence, the nothing, and the beyond of
the “beyond,” which is ultimately the “Nothing.” The “Nothing”
“in” man implies the wholeness of its entire structure. As the man
realizes that he is a something, he should essentially realize
also that he is nothing, and out of that nothing, there will be
the “unmoved” or “ungraspable” concept of “Nothing.” Man on its
completeness is a totally “Nothing,” for it is through “Nothing”
that he becomes nothing which makes him as something and as death
comes, he is “instancing” “Nothing.” The cycle of man’s life
35 Nihilensic Nosology, 1.
24
revolves on “Nothing” because it is where the “Fullness” of its
being a man lies. Thus, the “Nothing” “in” man emphasizes the
“given” structure within him which totally completes the
“essence” of its “Nosologicality.”
C. “Nosological” man as a Primordial “We”
Going beyond the idea of being (something) and non-being
(nothing) will finally lead us to the “idea” of “Nosological” man
as “We-Nothing.” “Nosological” man as “We-Nothing” explains the
“ungraspable” or the “given-ness” of its structure in relation to
its “Totality” as man. The “Completeness” of its foundation lies
on its “We-ness.” For it is through “It” that man can attain its
“Perfection.” Moreover, if we will analyse deeply the idea of
“Nothing,” it will bring us to the concept of Primordial “We.”
How? Looking from the perspective of the “We,” we become one on
“It” and we cannot distinguish from one another because
distinction happens only in the realm of something, an
existential concept.36 In existence there is a clear distinction,
but in “Nothing” no one is distinct from one another because of
the no “non-being” concept. Finally, the Primordial “We” develops36 Nosological Man 2, 4.
25
a “Foundation” “in” man which defines its being “We.” This will
become a “perception” about the “very” basis of man as “We” and
not an “I” precisely. And this will “reveal” the essence of man
in his existence that he is a “We” in the truest sense. Because
in “We,” everything is possible.
Chapter IV
4. “Consciousness” as “World” and “consciousness-in-the-world”
A. The “sameness” of world and consciousness
Without the world, there is no “consciousness.” Without the
consciousness, there is no world. Consciousness makes the world
possible through perceiving the world as world, and the world
becomes the product of consciousness. The world precisely becomes
a world because of the consciousness who is conscious of its
being a world. “Whatever we are conscious of (consciousness
included) is the world – our world.”37 Thus, our consciousness
makes our world as “we are-world.” Our world makes us also “we”
because we are the ones who are conscious of its being a world.
Consciousness as World will give us the idea of our being a “we-
37 WE, 41.
26
world.” We are the world which made possible of our being
conscious of its worldliness.38
B. Consciousness as a subject of Being-in-the-world
(Western Approach)
Consciousness as part of the Dasein’s existence makes itself
as the subject of the reality by way of knowing. It links with
the problem whether reality is independent of consciousness. This
will imply the importance of consciousness in terms of grasping
the “Real” in connection to the problem of external world. “…the
analysis of Reality is possible only on the basis of our having
appropriate access to the Real.”39 This will indicate that
consciousness is the way to access to the Real. Because without
consciousness, there is no knowing that will happen which
ultimately makes itself the subject of reality and its Being-in-
the-world. Thus, consciousness as the source of knowing will
really carry the sense of its being the subject-in-the-world.
C. “I Am We Are-World-Consciousness” as “Akitalibutan”
38 WE, 41.39 BT, 246.
27
“I Am We Are-World-Consciousness” is a sort of communal
consciousness of the world which makes the notion of “I Am We Are-
World” possible. “We-World” makes the personal communal world as
an objective world. Why? Because the only world that we are
conscious of is the personal communal world.40 This personal
communal world as “I Am We Are-World” will thoroughly create an idea
of “Akitalibutan” wherein the “I” who’s conscious of the world will
link itself to the “we” in order to have a sense of “certainty”
and can eventually avoid the idea of “solipsism.” “The ‘we’ (the
point of objectivity) ‘links’ the [‘I’] to the world as
objective.”41 The “I” can finally attain its being stable in
relation to its consciousness to the world. The “kita” in
“Akitalibutan” will now become the central point of objectivity of
the world. The world will surely become senseless if there is no
“we,” as the essence of its worldliness, because its being world
lies on the consciousness of the “we.” Thus, the “I am” world
(consciousness of “I” to the world) will be grounded in the “we
are” in order to reach the “truthfulness” of its idea of the
world. In this context, the “I am” and the “we are” will become
40 WE, 41.41 WE, 89.
28
one as “I am we are” (“Akita”). The “I am we are” is conscious of
the world that makes itself as “I am we are-world” or
“Akitalibutan.” “[The] ‘Akita’ (I am we are) is the condition for
the possibility of akalibutan (I am world) making it kitalibutan (we
are world).”42 The “akalibutan” and “kitalibutan” will now truly
become “Akitalibutan” by being conscious of it that will directly
lead to a personal communal objective world consciousness.
Chapter V
5. “We” are “One” as “Nothing-Everything”: “I can’t live without We”
In an existential point of view, “we” is composed of many
“Is” that are distinct from each other. Many “Is” give the
possibility to the “we” in order to create a commonality of
experience and consciousness. In this particular situation, the
reality creates various distinctions that will differentiate one
“I” from the other. However, in “Nosological” foundation of man,
the man as “I” is no longer an “I” but a “We.” In the “realm” of
“We,” every “Is” will become “One” in a view that “Nosological”
42 WE, 89.
29
man goes “beyond” from its physical reality, wherein everyone is
distinguishable from each other. The emphasis of “We” in “Nothing-
Everything” is directed towards the fullness of “Nosological” man.
The capacity of man to become “Everything” is thoroughly founded
out of his “Nothingness.” His attainment of his “Fullness” can be
determined through his being a “Nothing-Everything.” “With
‘Nosological’ man as ‘Nothing,’ ‘Everything’ is possible for
him.”43
A. The “impossibility” of the “I” without the “We”
“We” as the ultimate “Foundation” of man will surely cover
and capture the sense of “I” as Being because it goes beyond of
the “beyond.” In concrete phenomenon, a man can individually live
without the help of others. He can eat alone, drink alone, and
can extremely survive without the aid of others. But in a deeper
sense, all his actions, consciousness, and any other
characteristics can be fundamentally identified because of the
influence of others. For example, the clothes he wears, the food
he eats, etc. Thus, the “I” cannot live alone, but he has the
capacity to deny all those possessions by neglecting all those43 Nosological Man 2, 5.
30
things. However, in the side of man as being “Nosological.” He
cannot totally escape his structure as “We” for it is already a
“given-thing” in his “Nosologicality.” Therefore, the “I” becomes
impossible without the “We” because “It” is the very “origin” of
his being an “I” in the world.
B. Inseparable “I-We-World”
Unlike from the worldly existence, the “I-We-World” is
considered as an inseparable “reality” where there is no
distinction, differences, and otherness. This “phenomenon” of “I-
We-World” signifies the Unity, Communion and Oneness of its entire
structure. In spite of its being “One,” the pivotal, the crucial
ground, the essential basis of the concept is the “We.”44 The
central point of “We” is to eliminate the “ego-based” structure
of existence in the world. Although, the “We” is quite hypothetical
in relation to the existential reality, but “It” will serve as
the foundation of “egoistic” phenomenon. The “World” meant here is
interrelated to the consciousness which is aware of its being a
world. “The world is world because of consciousness.”45
44 WE, 87. 45 WE, 41.
31
Furthermore, if we will try to separate the “I,” “We” and
“World,” we will be left hanging because the three are
interconnected with each other; for without the presence of each
other, their existence might become impossible and undetermined.
Although, the “I” and “We” can live without the world but
emphasis of the world is in the consciousness itself. Thus, the
concept of “I,” “We,” and “World” can essentially contribute
towards the significance of each other. For example, in order the
“I” to avoid the threat of solipsism, it must consider the
existence of others and the world. It will become conceivable if
it is in the domain of the “We.” The “We” becomes the constituter of
the “I” although later the “I” in its drive for independence and
freedom postulates that it is the constituter of everything, all
for the “I.”46 In worldly existence, the “We” will become
impossible without the presence of many “Is.” However, the two
persons might not become aware of their selves without the world
where consciousness of the world happened and realized. But this
doesn’t mean that the world is the subject of their existence,
instead it is a “place” where everyone (entities) has a
46 WE, 71.
32
consciousness. Moreover, the effect of the inseparable reality of
“I-We-World” is directed towards the attainment of objective world
where the common ground is in the “We.” Thus, the emphasis of “I-
We-World” can ultimately give meaning to everything.
C. “Unity” of “I’s” as “We” towards “Akitalibutan”
In existential reality of the world, every man seems to be
divided from each other. There is no unity among individuals who
are living in one concrete world. Misunderstanding and
misinterpretations are happening along the domain of the question
“what is the world?” Is it a world? Or worlds? It signifies the
root of many doubts and confusions in terms of understanding the
self and others.47 These particular instances might be the
originating cause of all rebellions and disunions between
persons, races and cultures. Moreover, the underlying concept of
unity and communion are not possibly applicable to all because of
these stated problems. There is something wrong within our
foundation as human beings. That would be the problem of the
worlds in the world. The word worlds is intertwined with47 WE, 3.
33
consciousness. Why? Because consciousness shapes the world, and
the world is where the consciousness is being shaped. Thus, this
analysis would give us the idea the “we are the world.” “…
Consciousness of the world is at the same time consciousness as
world. The consciousness that is conscious of the world is the
world itself – a self-consciousness.”48
Furthermore, the recent situation of the world is something
far from the communal or objective world because of the existence
of plurality and singularity. Objective will only become possible
if there are communion of perception by accepting others worlds.
Their perception of the world and the perception of an individual
person of the world could create a personal communal world.49 If
every person is aware of this personal communal world, there will
be a communion and acceptance of the “I am We are the World”
concept or “Akitalibutan.” “We” consciousness will truly lead
everyone to be aware that they are the one who create the “Our
World,” the “We – World.” Thus, by accepting the veracity of “We
– World,” it will directly link this to the idea regarding the
48 WE, 41. 49 See, Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr., “We”: “Nosology” of Communion (Jaro,
Iloilo City, Philippines: St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary Publications, 2009), 41.
34
very foundation of man as “We,” the “Nosological” man. By
remembering the “We – World,” every man will become equal and
justice will now reign the whole complexity of humanity. The
acceptance and communion of one another will apodictically
clarified the sense of being as “We” – the original structure of
every man as a “Nosological” in the truest sense. Through the
communal awareness as “One World,” the “We-World,” everybody will
attain such happiness and peace that will gradually unite all man
as “Kitawo/Akitalibutan” towards “instancing” “We-Time-
Nothingness.”
Conclusion
Positively, this paper will end up with the affirmation
regarding man’s foundational journey as “Nothing” to nothing to
something and “instancing” “Nothing.” This will highlight the
idea that “Nosological” man is thoroughly founded on “Nothing.”
This particular idea will create a certain perspective that man’s
ultimate ground is the “Primordial” “We.” The “We” is innate in
35
man’s structure that will distinct itself from the “egoistic”
phenomenon of the Western thought.
The “We” as “Kitawo” in man explicate the identity of man as
“We” and not as “I” which will give itself an awareness of others
as “tawo” also like itself. In that particular condition, the
“tawo” will accept the “hereness” and “thereness” of that
particular “tawo” that will link themselves as “kitawo-in-the-
world.” It will simply imply the idea of “ikaw” and “ako” are
both “kitawo” who are existing, and later on will be “instancing”
towards “Kitawo” as the “main” point.
As the man “instancing” “Nothing” through death, it will
highlight the “Fullness” of man towards its “We-ness.” The
reality of death reveals the end point of the existence of Being-
in-the-world which will really give the possibility of the
beyond, nothingness (“flow”), and the “beyond” of the beyond,
“Nothingness” (“Unflow”). The “truth” within the realm of
nothingness will totally give a perception to the totality of
Being. Because Being is determined only through the ontological
sphere of existence. Nevertheless, the Being-ness of Being will
36
become non-Being in the horizon of nothingness. Along the course
of nothingness, there is still a movement that “flows.” However,
if we will try to analyse it deeply, we will discover that in
order to have a movement or “flow,” there must be a “Unmoved.”
And that “Unmoved” is the “Nothing” as the ultimate ground of
Being and non-Being. Thus, this conception will clarify the
“origin” of man as “We-Nothing-Time.” In that state of
clarification as the man exists in the world, it will become
aware of its “We” in itself that will dispose itself towards its
being “Nosological.” This will build a perspective that
everything is possible through the concept of “We.”
The “Nosological” man as “We-man” will utterly realizes that
its consciousness will become the leeway to be conscious of the
world where its consciousness will be formed also. Along the
domain of its being conscious of the world, it will encounter
other consciousness that will wholly contribute to form a
personal communal world towards the notion of “Kitawo” from
“Akitalibutan” as the basis. By being conscious of the world and
other consciousness, it will develop a sense wherein the “I-We-
37
World” are inseparable with each other. “We” as the focal point
will become the determiner of the “I” and the world.
Therefore, the ultimate foundation of man as “We-Time-
Nothingness” will clarify all the confusions and doubts about the
whole structure Being. This will resolve the problem of Dasein
regarding the quest for the “truth” after death, as well as the
problems of plurality and diversity of Beings in the world. By
considering the “real” identity of man as “Nosological,” it will
construct a perception about the concept of “Kitawo” as the key
towards the reality of Objective world, a “One-World” for all.
38